Hi-
SOTS was released to theatres in the US in the early 80's (1984, I think? I could be very wrong about this, I'm going off memory).
FWIW, SOTS is set during the reconstruction. The African American characters are share croppers, not slaves - there is a poor white family of share croppers as well. That said, it is clear that the rich white folks in the big house are in charge, and there is a tone of subjegation to it. For example, even though Uncle Remus is wise and kind, he is clearly scolded by the white folks and "knows his place." I think that the scenes of the "happy darkies" singing as they go out to the fields, and gathering at the big house to sing for the health of the poor sick white boy are insulting today even though they weren't seen as such at the time the movie was made. The matriarch of the big house definitely holds the power, and it isn't clear if the source of her power is money or her race. To me, these are the two elements that are clearly rascist (e.g., 1. the stereotypical 1940's view of the happy darkies, and 2. the inherent power that the white folks hold over the black folks). FWIW, I think that this film could be a good opportunity for parents to talk to their children about streotyping, about historical views of white-black relations (particularly in context of media portrayals of this), and about power in relationships between people of different races. There are other movies that directly and indirectly approach both of these subjects, and they are important subjects to tackle.
Unfortunately, the more I think about it though, I am glad that this film is not in release, because I am afraid that there are many parents who would see "nothing wrong with it" themselves and not bother having those important conversations, but would use it as a video baby sitter rather than a teaching opportunity. Even worse, I hate to think about those who believe in a revisionist glorified version of the history of the south, who would see this as a tool to teach their children how great things were before the yankees ruined everything. I think it was Roger Ebert who said something along the lines of "I wouldn't want to be the black kid in school the day after this was released." For Disney collectors, animation buffs, historians, and confederate glory nuts, this movie is readily available and relatively easy to get. It really doesn't bother me that it you have to jump through a couple of hoops to get it. Maybe someday we as a society will be ready to watch this movie with our children and talk about the subtle racism that prevades it and help them think about that, but unfortunately I don't think we are there. That is just my opinion of course. I hope I am being to cynical, and that actually the film could be released with an opening segment setting the tone and other background information included on the dvd.
DR
PS I edited this post to add this after thought - there isn't much in sots that is more stereotypical than the crows in Dumbo or the Indians in Peter Pan. I think that the Indians in Peter Pan are probably more offensive, with their sloped foreheads, and the song about "when the red man first said Ugh." Not to mention "we're off to fight the injuns." That thing is just full of stereotypes. Pocahontas shows us how our stereotype of native americans has changed over time, from the primitive teepee-dwelling, sqaw-slapping, uggh-saying injuns, to the almost mystical, spiritually in tune with nature, glorified noble savage.
). I think people who might have a problem with it need to grow up and realize that it's just a movie and doesn't reflect reality.
